Look, here's a fact that doesn't get talked about enough: dark matter was first proposed in the 1930s to explain galaxy rotation curves, and we still haven't directly detected a single particle of it nearly a century later. That's not a theory that's working—it's a theory that's failed to deliver. And it's not just about detection. Every time we build a more sensitive experiment, like LUX or XENON1T, we get nothing but empty hands. Meanwhile, alternative ideas like Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) have predicted galaxy behaviors that dark matter can't even explain without constant tweaking. You have to add extra parameters, new particles, and strange interactions just to keep the model alive. I get that dark matter fits the math in some places, but when a theory needs this many patches to survive, it's time to ask if we're forcing it. We're spending billions chasing a ghost.

Let me give you a real-world example that hits close to home. We've poured over a billion dollars into detectors like LUX-ZEPLIN, buried a mile underground, and after decades of searching—nothing. Not a single confirmed dark matter particle. That's not a theory that's "working," that's a theory on life support. Now, you might say absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Fair point. But here's the thing: MOND correctly predicted the rotation curves of 153 galaxies in a 2016 study without any adjustable parameters. Dark matter had to be retrofitted to match. When one theory makes predictions and another just explains after the fact, I know which one I'd bet on. I'm not saying dark matter is impossible. I'm saying it's failed to deliver on its promises. At some point, you've gotta admit the emperor has no clothes.

I remember sitting in my college astronomy class, watching a professor sketch out the Bullet Cluster on a chalkboard. He said, "This is proof of dark matter." But even then, I thought, "Proof of what, exactly?" We see gravitational lensing where there's no visible matter. That's real. But calling it dark matter is just a label for something we don't understand. It's like saying "magic" explains a magic trick. You brought up the Bullet Cluster, and I'll admit it's a strong point. MOND has trouble there. But here's the thing: dark matter doesn't actually explain it either. It just names the gap. We're basically saying, "We see something weird, so let's invent an invisible substance." That's not a theory, that's a placeholder. Meanwhile, MOND keeps predicting galaxy rotations correctly. Dark matter keeps needing patches. One is doing the work, the other is getting funding.